We must not content ourselves with the Jews getting pushed around from one country to another and possibly still having a big Jewish ghetto here and there. Instead, our goal can only be the old one: the Jewish question in Europe and in Germany is only solved when there is no longer a single Jew on the European continent [Wir dürfen uns nicht damit begnügen, dass die Juden von einem Staat zum anderen geschoben werden, und dass vielleicht hier und da noch ein großes jüdisches Ghetto steckt, sondern unser Ziel kann nur das alte sein: Die Judenfrage in Europa und in Deutschland ist nur dann gelöst, wenn es keinen Juden mehr auf dem europäischen Kontinent gibt].

Rosenberg was thus repeating his declaration of November 18, 1941, but this time, with no possibility of the Jews being pushed militarily over the Urals, the method could only be direct killing.

Critics would say, this quote: "We must not content ourselves with the Jews getting pushed around from one country to another and possibly still having a big Jewish ghetto here and there. Instead, our goal can only be the old one: the Jewish question in Europe and in Germany is only solved when there is no longer a single Jew on the European continent"

It could just mean repatriation to any other area outside of Europe and not necessarily genocide, because no such mention.

Well he had already stated "biological eradication" in the earlier speech that I linked to. In addition, there was no way of repatriating Jews outside Europe at this time. Germany had lost at Stalingrad so its power was limited to European soil. Moreover, why would the Nazis push Jews into Soviet territory where they could become partisans? Clearly Rosenberg means extermination.

Repatriation to where? By 1943 the Germans were in retreat. They lacked the ability to ship Jews out of Europe. The Nazis certainly couldn't negotiate with Stalin to take them for obvious reasons and Stalin previously refused to take the Jews before Germany invaded. To the Nazis the Jews spread disease and were the face behind the partisan. Why ship the Jews into a war zone to cause trouble behind German armies?Repatriation makes no sense whatsoever.

I agree that it does not make sense that they should unleash the Jews in the East at that time. There seems to be not even a single witness, that it would have happened either.

Is this speech in the movie to see and hear? As well as the other similar statements and speeches?

Critics, however, question whether these speeches are genuine. For why would the Nazi leaders give orders to the mass murder of Jews in gas chambers and so must be done in absolute secrecy so that the SS men had to swear a oath not tell further, etc., while the top leaders in public speaking could talk to all the world they'll mass-murdering Jews, how does that go together? How would you answer that?

Would you say that the Nazi plan was that as Rosberg seems to imply, that they after victory against the Russians would let the Jews free in the east, somewhere in the Urals? Is there any evidence for this plan? And it was only at the loss of Stalingrad that made them change their mind and instead decide to mass murder them instead, as a solution? What make them change their minds, then? Only practical reasons?

Though mass murder going on through mass shootings of civilians Jews in 1941?

So would you say that they decided to mass-murdering them before it began to go badly for the Germans in the war? Or even before the war? But then they spoke to repatriate them outside Europe, Madagascar was well on speech? So at that time there might not be thought of mass murder? So when and why did they decided instead to solve the Jewish question with mass murder instead of reptriering? Why?

The Nazis reacted to events as they occurred. Throughout the 30's their solution was emigration because it was a viable option for a relatively small population of German Jews. Neighboring or nearby countries not under German control took Jews. The issue began after the Germans conquered those countries. As German territory grew the options for emigration shrank, specifically in the case of Poland where a large number of Jews lived. In 1940 the expulsion of the Jews to Madagascar appeared as a viable option but the British Navy was an insurmountable barrier. The Germans thought the British would surrender, when the British didn't it closed off the Madagascar solution.The Germans tried to get Stalin to take them but he refused.You also have to consider the increasing radicalization of Nazi policy going on at the same time. For example, Hitler only enacted a large scale Euthanasia program after the war started. While a separate event from the Holocaust it showed that Hitler was willing to turn to genocidal solutions to solve "problems."The invasion of the Soviet Union increased this radicalization of Nazi policy. The original intent of the Einsatsgruppen was to shoot specific enemies, Communist functionaries and those that supported them. This included Jews because Nazi ideology linked Jews specifically with Communism. The Einsatsgruppen found that Jews were easier to find and the locals were willing to help. Originally the Einsatsgruppen only shot men but turned to killing women and children to eliminate "useless mouths."The murders at Chelmno began as a solution to eliminate non-productive Jews to solve food shortages.The Action Reinhardt Camps were also a solution to eliminate non-productive Jews. The Nazis turned to gassing as a way to eliminate stress for those involved in mass murder.Birkenau continued this idea of selection, killing those who could not work and forcing the able-bodied to work for German war effort.Hope this helps. This blog contains specific evidence of German activities and their attitudes towards the Jews.

So, would you say that there from the beginning, the nazis, NSDAP, Hitler and so on, had no plan or wish for exterminate all jews as a people or a race?

I have read that that was the plan from the beginning when Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf". But that you would say is false?

What would you say, was the reason for the radicalisation? It begun 1940?

Even if repatriation out of Europe was no solution, at the time for Polands jews etc, why was there not a option for the nazis to send them out of Europa after their victory that they believed in into the end? What changed their minds, would you say? Was int only practical reasons?

If their moral before was that it was right to send them out of Europe, but not to kill them, I am wondering if and how many of the party members and leaders, that was against this radicalisation, and if there was some resistance against this by more moderative and less radical nazis?

I think, whatever Hitler wanted, the idea was to drive the Jews from Germany first and ultimately Europe. I think this was a practical solution because it's hard to imagine any sort of open genocidal campaign against the Jews because of both German and world opinion. War provided a cover. You can see this in the T-4 Euthanasia Program, Hitler waited until the invasion of Poland to begin a widespread campaign to murder the disabled in Germany (there was some limited killings earlier). Even after the war started the T-4 Program remained a state secret due to fear of how the German public would react. This later proved justified after German public opinion forced the closure of open killing of the disabled (though it continued on in secret with the killing of concentration camp inmates and the disabled).As far as the option of waiting until after victory, the Germans were dealing with a dire food situation during the war. It made sense to eliminate non-productive ideological enemies to improve that situation. Keep in mind this also applied to other ideological enemies like the Soviet POWs. The Germans allowed millions of POWs to die from starvation to eliminate the need to feed them. Only after labor became important were these POWs fed just enough to keep them alive. The same thing applies to the Jews. The Germans killed the unproductive and allowed the productive to live awhile longer.I think there was probably some opposition among party members who, for practical or moral reasons opposed all of this. Rosenberg, for example, opposed the ill treatment of Soviet citizens, especially Ukrainians, because he wanted them as allies. I've read elsewhere that there were Wehrmacht and SS men that opposed the killing of the Jews but I can't remember specific examples.Going back to Hitler, I know there are examples in Mein Kampf and in some of his earlier speeches and interviews that talked about the eradication of the Jews. Maybe it is what he wanted all along but Hitler could be practical when it suited him. Openly talking about the extermination of the Jews as a rising politician or as a new Chancellor would be a tactical mistake.

But what was Hitler and other nazi leaders thinking about when, they in public speeches was talking about killing the jews openly, to the world to hear, and all germans and so on, when at the same time they wanted lower ranked SS men promise to be quiet of the killings, and keep it a secret. But how could it be a secret when the leaders already had told the world that they where going to murder the jewish people. What was the point about that?

Anything public that Hitler or other Nazis said about the extermination (I am thinking of Hitler's infamous speech in 1939, his "Prophecy" speech) were meant as warnings. Anything that dealt with specifics (I am thinking of Himmler's Posen speeches) were not meant for the public to hear.Naturally this is my opinion and I could be wrong, there may be other speeches or public statements that I forgot about that contradict what I am saying. These are two different examples I can think of right now.

I also wonder if they decided to murder so much jews, and POWs because there where are not enough natural resources, foods, etc. to feed them, or if they actually did it, because they want to eradicate them?

The latter. The idea that there's "not enough natural resources, food, etc" is complete BS. Anyone will tell you that German civilians were well off even as people in the KLS were dying off. It's right their in the orders Goering and the Wehrmacht gave - POWs aren't to be given any food not because of any scarcity BS, but they're subhuman and supposed to die.The fact is that food and resources were in abundance - the Nazis just stole most of it with the intention of inducing famine like conditions and letting the subhumans die.

"As far as the option of waiting until after victory, the Germans were dealing with a dire food situation during the war. It made sense to eliminate non-productive ideological enemies to improve that situation. Keep in mind this also applied to other ideological enemies like the Soviet POWs. The Germans allowed millions of POWs to die from starvation to eliminate the need to feed them." ?

Very interesting with the Goering and Werhrmacht orders. Can I read those somewhere?

The Germans found the food to feed prisoners when they decided that labor was important. A perfect example of this was the Soviet POWs. The Germans (keep in mind that the POWs were under military, not Nazi or SS control) allowed 2 million Soviet POWs to die of starvation between June 1941 and the Spring of 1942 until they figured out that these prisoners were valuable as labor.Even if food was a problem it didn't help that these POWs often lived in open fields with no shelter, even when shelter was available. They were also inadequately clothed, made worse by Germans stealing their warm clothing. Some of the POWs were turned over to the SS where they were executed. Auschwitz received 10,000 Soviet POWs in the Fall of 1941, only a few hundred were alive by the next Spring. The high number of deaths shows this was a deliberate policy of genocide.

Do you have some good links about that Jonathan? I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_Plan

"Germany itself was running low on food supplies, and the same problem faced the various territories occupied by Germany. The fundamental premise behind the Hunger Plan was that Germany was not self-sufficient in food supplies during the war, and to sustain the war it needed to obtain the food from conquered lands at any cost. It was an engineered famine, planned and implemented as a rational act of policy for the benefit of the German nation above all others.[1] The plan as a means of mass murder was outlined in several documents, including one that became known as Göring's Green Folder."

So the germans was running low on food supplies? So, that was brutal, but logical thing to do?

But what are the proof that they wanted to exterminate the whole russian people as a people? Brutal arguing for killing some millions of POWS, how brutal it sounds, may not mean that there is a plan of total extermination of every ethic russian, lets say if they had won the war? This I read critics say.

How would you answer that?

And one other claims, is that if it where true that Hitler and the nazis wanted ti exterminate the whole russian people (and not just communism) and all slavs, how come so many slavs where allies with the nazis? How then come slavic nations where united with the nazis, if they wanted to kill them and vice versa? How would you answer this critic?

- "Germany itself was running low on food supplies, and the same problem faced the various territories occupied by Germany.-

Sounds like BS to me. If that's the case, the reason was because Germany had waged a war of aggression against its neighbors. Any alleged "shortages" were because of Germany being at war, and in any case, the rationale behind the hunger plan was so that the Foodstuffs the Germans stole from Eastern European countries would a) be used to support its war effort and b)sent back to Germany, to maintain a peacetime standard of living.

- But what are the proof that they wanted to exterminate the whole russian people as a people?-

Your BS wikipedia answers your question.

- It was an engineered famine, planned and implemented as a rational act of policy for the benefit of the German nation above all others.[1] The plan as a means of mass murder was outlined in several documents,-

- So the germans was running low on food supplies? So, that was brutal, but logical thing to do?-It sounds like you don't have a problem with mass robbery and the murder by starvation of countless innocent people, all because they're not German, because the Master race was running out of food because of a war they started. What's wrong with you?

- But what are the proof that they wanted to exterminate the whole russian people as a people? Brutal arguing for killing some millions of POWS,-

-Due to this umpteen million people will doubtlessly starve to death when we take what is necessary for us out of the land. -

Doesn't sound like just POWs to me.

More here. http://holocaustcontroversies.yuku.com/topic/1904/The-Nazi-Hunger-Plan-for-Occupied-Soviet-Territories#.Vo-kFBV97IU

- And one other claims, is that if it where true that Hitler and the nazis wanted ti exterminate the whole russian people (and not just communism) and all slavs, how come so many slavs where allies with the nazis-

Because they wanted to live? They thought they could get on the Nazis' good side? Corruption?

All of these are easily answerable. You're making mountains out of molehills.

I also think that the Slavs that fought for Hitler hoped to profit from his conquests. The Romanians joined the invasion of the USSR hoping to regain lost territory and expand their own territories. Romania actively murdered Jews on their own initiative.

Nathan said: "It sounds like you don't have a problem with mass robbery and the murder by starvation of countless innocent people, all because they're not German, because the Master race was running out of food because of a war they started. What's wrong with you?"

Well, I have a big problem with it. It was so clear reprehensible acts, but I'm just trying to understand how they thought. When I write that it was a brutal but logical thing to do, I mean logically from their Nazi worldview and ideology. If they considered that the Russians lacked human rights and the right to live, etc., and proceeded after a morality of what was only the best for their people and race, and acted accordingly what they considered the best for them, regardless of whether they hurt other peoples and races, even if it meant mass murder of others, it is the logical consequence of their ideology, I mean. Not that I'm defending it.

Nathan said: "-Due to this umpteen million people will doubtlessly starve to death when we take what is necessary for us out of the land. -"

This of course is horrible and reprehensible, but I know how the supporters of this ideology today would probably reply that they did what was necessary for their troops and people's survival, because there was a war, and then other rules apply, whether we like it not. That millions died as a result, may been horrible but necessary, but does not mean that they after a victory, would exterminate the rest of the population, because it was not a goal in itself, to exterminate an entire people. The mass starvation was a tragic but logical consequence of the war, but does not prove that the Nazis wanted to exterminate the whole Russian people, or all Slavs, for victory and peace, that there be an end in itself.

And about the war, they claim, they attacked in anticipation of a Soviet and Polish attack was imminent, and if they had not batted first, they had only lost time and means to defend themselves, so equally good attacking first and take the leading initiative step instead of waiting for an attack and go on the defensive, and therefore maybe loose more.

This i think would be the critic, not from me.

I am not a Nazi sympathizer or "revisionist", I will only take up their arguments and assertions, because I'm interested in how you who are more knowledgeable on the subject, would respond to these in order to learn more. Trying to be a sort of "devil's advocate". Some things I myself have some doubts about too.

"I also think that the Slavs that fought for Hitler hoped to profit from his conquests. The Romanians joined the invasion of the USSR hoping to regain lost territory and expand their own territories. Romania actively murdered Jews on their own initiative."

Is there evidence do you believe that the Germans would have accepted the Romanians' demand to get back lost territory?

I do not know what to think of the Nazis really wanted to exterminate ALL the Slavs (maybe "just" russians and poles?) Hitler and the Nazis admired romanian Corneliu Codreanu and celebrated his death, and as far as I know they supported his movement, who were a nationalist Slavic Romanian movement.

There is an article that defends the Romanian movement, would be interesting to hear what you think of it ?:

"Corneliu Codreanu is often accused of having called for the destruction of Jews, yet nowhere had he ever done such a thing, either in speech or in writing. While Codreanu had often expressed anger towards the Jews and even insulted them at times, the truth is that he merely wanted to peacefully deport Jews to Palestine as a solution to the problem (as is made clear, for example, in The Nest Leader’s Manual). Codreanu also opposed any sort of immoral action or physical attacks against Jews, as he himself stated in his autobiography For My Legionaries.Michel Sturdza (a Romanian nobleman and diplomat), who joined the Legion and was learned in its policies, informs us in The Suicide of Europe that “Codreanu never tolerated the slightest physical violence against Jews or Jewish properties. Any act of indiscipline in that direction would have been punished immediately by the expulsion of the culprits from the organization.” This fact, often cited by Legionaries, is almost always ignored by official “historians” in academia today.As is obvious, while the Legion of Michael the Archangel wanted to remove Jews from Romania so that they could safeguard Romania’s culture and national vitality, their anti-Semitism was in no way violent or immoral. Thus we can see that there are different forms of anti-Semitism which must be distinguished from each other in order to understand the Legion’s true character."

I actually read his book a long time ago "For my legionaries", and I remember a piece in which he told of how he scolded a comrade who refused to pay a jewish resturant owner. Seems different from "Mein Kampf" antisemitism. They seem to have been a different kind of motion than the German Nazis, did not seem as brutal and extreme as they. But I do not know, do you have any opinion on this, and about Corneliu Codreanu ?

J Kelly said:

"Anything public that Hitler or other Nazis said about the extermination (I am thinking of Hitler's infamous speech in 1939, his "Prophecy" speech) were meant as warnings. Anything that dealt with specifics (I am thinking of Himmler's Posen speeches) were not meant for the public to hear. Naturally this is my opinion and I could be wrong, there may be other speeches or public statements that I forgot about that contradict what I am saying. These are two different examples I can think of right now."

If the decision to exterminate the Jews had not been taken in 1939, and Hitler's speech to exterminate the Jews in 1939, should be seen as a warning, and not as a definitive decision to exterminate the Jews, this is often used as evidence for the Holocaust? Revisionists also argues that it would be seen as a warning and not as a sign that he actually was going to murder the Jews. Or how should we view it?

Something I read about this in the topic, I would like to hear your views on the following, from "Critics":

"It was the Germans' fault that, forced civilians (jews) in such concentration camps and forced them to live under such inhuman conditions, it was the Germans or the leaders in the German state that was responsible for Jewish suffering, although even if there were no gas chambers"

Critics answer:

"Why had they been set in camps (Jews, Communists, prisoners of war, etc.) at all? Why did the United States had the 2, 3, 4-generation Japanese-Americans in camps? You can not put the entire responsibility for the situation at ond part in such a situation. Furthermore, Germany was trying by all means to encourage Jews to emigrate before and during the war, they wanted, for example, to change prisoners of any kind against vehicles and coffee but was denied by the Allies."

"On many of these concentration camps as the Allies liberated, where the jewish prisoners were absolutely starving and dying and had no food, while the captured SS guards were fat and healthy"

Critics answer:

"Interesting point, I have always heard that the camps were empty on Germans when the camps were liberated. However, it is one thing to feed a handful of guards, and quite another to feed a whole camp. In a situation of famine, one do not give away the little you have to eat to others, especially to enemies like in that case, it does not mean you want to see them starve."

"The German population some few hundred meters outside the camps, were in no distress in comparison and had stocked with food and bread, just outside of the camps that were not shared with the prisoners, as they had forced into camps, even though they easily could."

Critics answer:

"To keep people accountable for that in a crisis at war, they did not feed the enemy is, if anything, an entirely unreasonable position to take."

This is what the US government responded to the question of the war against Iraq was worth it, as the result of the American war killed over 500,000 children:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

They believe that it was worth it! I think it is a terrible statement, and no different morally from the statements of the Nazi leaders who thought it was worth their war would result in scores of murdered innocent civilians, blah through starvation, as I understood it was one of the reasons why so many children died in Iraq.

What I think we can conclude the following:

1. That the US view on human life and human rights, was as low and evil as the Nazi ethic, and they are not one bit better, and that even democratic states can be just as vicious as dictatorships.

2. That despite the US government sick morality, who thought it was ok to kill 500,000 children and seem to have no problem with it, you can not use this as evidence that the United States after having fought against Iraq and occupied the country, they had the goal to eradicate all Iraqi children and all the Iraqi people. How horrible Americans' indifference before the murdered Iraqi children was, you can not use it as evidence of a planned total annihilation of all the Iraqi people, so far they have no evidence that they explicitly wanted this and put such plans.

What I wonder is if the Nazis had such plans? Is it proven? They found that the war is worth 30 million dead Russians, does like the example of the Americans not necessarily mean, that they wanted or was planing to exterminate the whole Russian people. So I asking if there is evidence of such a planned total annihilation of the Russian people and the Slavs?

Do you understand what I mean? I do not claim that there is no such evidence, i don't deny, I'm just asking you if there is such evidence, to try to sort this out.

As I understood it, Görings documents, etc., does not explicitly talk about this?

Now maybe I did not read so carefully, but I noted this in the link where Roberto had translated:

"According to a later deposition of the Head of the Personal Staff Reichsführer-SS, Karl Wolff, what Himmler had said on the Wewelsburg was that the death of these millions of people was not the goal, but would be the consequence of the war against the USSR."

- "Why had they been set in camps (Jews, Communists, prisoners of war, etc.) at all? Why did the United States had the 2, 3, 4-generation Japanese-Americans in camps? You can not put the entire responsibility for the situation at ond part in such a situation. Furthermore, Germany was trying by all means to encourage Jews to [b]emigrate before and during[/b] the war, they wanted, for example, to change prisoners of any kind against vehicles and coffee but was denied by the Allies."-

You're bullshitting. The Germans blocked all Jewish emigration during the war. Gestapo Chief Heinrich Muller explicitly ordered that all Jewish emigration be ceased in 1941. The Korherr report says the same thing.

The first sentence is also bullshit. The US interred Japanese Americans in concentration camps. The Germans sent death squads to Eastern Europe to gun down Jewish men, women and children for the sole reason of murdering them. Afterwards, they sent them en masse to extermination camps, were they were murdered wholesale in gas chambers. Rosenberg said it right there in his quote in the article - Not a single Jew left in Europe.

As for the last sentence, assuming it's not bullshit, it already proves what most reasonable people know - the Allies were antisemites too and didn't care about the Jews. That doesn't justify the Germans murdering them.

Simple and easy to answer, and known to anyone. Especially someone playing a "devil's advocate".

-If the decision to exterminate the Jews had not been taken in 1939, and Hitler's speech to exterminate the Jews in 1939, should be seen as a warning, and not as a definitive decision to exterminate the Jews, this is often used as evidence for the Holocaust? Revisionists also argues that it would be seen as a warning and not as a sign that he actually was going to murder the Jews. Or how should we view it?-

It's all about escalation. What the 1939 speeches prove is that the intent was there. The option for genocide was always on the table, and it was just the war that gave them the opportunity to do it.

The Final Solution was the means to an end - to make Europe "Judenfrei", it was not the end in itself. Like JKelly explained to you earlier, the Means adapted to the situation.

Jkelly already answered this question for you, or at least he answered the same question differently phrased. Why are you asking it again? Because you're bullshitting?

- "The German population some few hundred meters outside the camps, were in no distress in comparison and had stocked with food and bread, just outside of the camps that were not shared with the prisoners, as they had forced into camps, even though they easily could."

"Critics" answer:

"To keep people accountable for that in a crisis at war, they did not feed the enemy is, if anything, an entirely unreasonable position to take."

How would you guys respond to "Critics" ?-

Anyone who keeps prisoners is responsible for taking care of them, and anything that happens to them is the captor's fault. Since the inmates were mostly innocent, and were just imprisoned because the Master race didn't like them, then maybe the Master race shouldn't have imprisoned them in the first place. Your description of these people as "enemy" is revolting, and should already be an answer to the question - the "Critic" is a racist psychopath. Your inability to see that shows that you're bullshitting.

- That despite the US government sick morality, who thought it was ok to kill 500,000 children and seem to have no problem with it, you can not use this as evidence that the United States after having fought against Iraq and occupied the country, they had the goal to eradicate all Iraqi children and all the Iraqi people. How horrible Americans' indifference before the murdered Iraqi children was, you can not use it as evidence of a planned total annihilation of all the Iraqi people, so far they have no evidence that they explicitly wanted this and put such plans.-

Straw man argument. It's not just the statements that are being used as evidence, it's the statements plus the policies.

Look up the siege of Leningrad. Roberto has it inside the HC reference library. The orders are right there that the Wehrmacht is to refuse any offer of surrender, and that Leningrad as a symbol of communism must be destroyed. A million people died there.

I didn't know that Rosenberg's description of "not a single Jew left in Europe", or the explicit orders to refuse any surrender from Leningrad is the same as the US's indifference to the suffering of the Iraqi People. I also didn't know that the US government sent death squads to gun down Iraqi Civilians en masse, or that the US carried out mass robbery with the intention to starve Iraqi Civilians to death. The US also did it's best to ensure that Iraq would be viable and able to support itself afterwards. Which, I believe, is the opposite of the following quote from the Hunger plan, which you seem to have missed.

-b) There is no German interest in maintaining the productive capacity of these regions, also in what concerns the supplies of the troops stationed there. […] The population of these regions, especially the population of the cities, will have to anticipate a famine of the greatest dimensions. The issue will be to redirect the population to the Siberian areas. As railway transportation is out of the question, this problem will also be an extremely difficult one. […]-

Can you read that, bullshitter? It's quite explicit, and the opposite of what the US tried to do.

And no, this isn't designed to exculpate the US of any criminal responsibility. The US has done a lot of dirty things - just look at Vietnam. The point is that you're giving a bullshit analogy, because you're bullshitting.

-"According to a later deposition of the Head of the Personal Staff Reichsführer-SS, Karl Wolff, what Himmler had said on the Wewelsburg was that the death of these millions of people was not the goal, but would be the consequence of the war against the USSR."-

Sounds like the Son of a bitch was trying to defend himself and his colleagues. That's what people on trial do. You can see that in US police shootings. That should be very obvious, but of course, you're bullshittting.

You keep on asking the same questions over and over, in different ways, even though they've already been answered. All of your "questions" can easily be answered by reading books written by historians. You're bullshitting. Fuck off.

- And about the war, they claim, they attacked in anticipation of a Soviet and Polish attack was imminent, and if they had not batted first, they had only lost time and means to defend themselves, so equally good attacking first and take the leading initiative step instead of waiting for an attack and go on the defensive, and therefore maybe loose more.-

I'm thinking of a eight letter word, it starts with B and ends with shit. Can you guess what that is?

The Pole is not an additional enemy. Poland will always be on the side of our enemies. Despite the friendship treaty there has always been the intention in Poland to use any chance against us.

Danzig is not the object that is at issue. The issue for us is the extension of living space in the east and securing of food supplies as well as solving the Baltic problem. Food supplies can only be obtained in areas sparsely populated. Beside the fertility the German thorough agriculture will immensely increase the surpluses.

You wrote "the Germans tried to (ex)change prisoners of all kinds against vehicles and coffee but was denied by the allies...."I assume you are talking about Eichman's offer to exchange a million Jews for trucks.I doubt the offer was sincere, considering during the period allegedly set for negotiations the Germans were busy shoving as many Hungarian Jews they could find onto transport trains to Auschwitz for either gassing or forced labor.The (Western) Allies had no reason to trust the Germans. It appears nothing more than an attempt to split the West from the Soviet Union. Besides, why in the world would the West give their enemies the means to resist?These types of exchanges were historically strictly prisoner exchanges, not exchanges for goods (though historically noble prisoners were exchanged for ransom).I will add that Himmler's motivation for stopping the killing in the fall of 1944 appears to include the possibility of using Jews (and other prisoners) as bargaining chips.

Most statements I took up was not my own as I wrote, but claims what I read from "revisionists" . I just wanted to ask to hear your expert opinion about it and how you would answer them, because I know you guys have read a lot more books and done a lot of work about this.

So I think one should not write nasty towards people who come with questions.

And I think you have given good answers, so thank you.

"The population of these regions, especially the population of the cities, will have to anticipate a famine of the greatest dimensions. The issue will be to redirect the population to the Siberian areas."

I think the "revisionist" critic against this, would be "redirect the population to the Siberian areas.

"Yes, redirect the russians to Siberian areas, not kill them all necessarily"

As I understood it from mainstream historians etc, the nazis wanted to assimilate those poles and russians that they could classify as "aryans" and forcing the rest to move. And it was what I could understand, what they also originated in Poland, for example.

It was so clearly reprehensible, as they wanted to steal food from the Russians, and that they did not care that millions would die of it.

But if they wanted and planned, to destroy and kill every single slav hmm, I do not know, is there evidence of that? Is even the historians saying that? (Yes exterminate the jews, but all European slavs?) Rosenberg himself was of Slavic origin I think and lived in Russia for years, for example? I read somewhere that Rosenberg had much inspiration for his anti-Semitism and the Nazi ideology from like-minded Russians, who warned germans of the Jewish communists etc.

It seems clear that they wanted to get rid of the Russians and steal their food from large regions, and that it was worth millions of Russians would die. (yes that is all sick in it shelf) But what I'm wondering is, do you mean that there is evidence that they wanted to exterminate them completely and that they would not be any place on earth for them the live? They talked in the actual document you quoted, to send them to Siberia? Would you say it speak for or against that wanted to kill all Russians?

Is there evidence that they planned to murder them once they got there in Siberia? Or would they be allowed to live there in the outskirts?

I don't think the plan was to kill all the Slavs.I think that the Slavs would have suffered horribly had Germany won the war,Poland is the great example. Under six years of Nazi occupation 6 million Poles died, this number includes 3 million Jews.The Nazis attempted to eradicate the Polish elite during "Operation Tannenberg," shooting thousands of academics, business leaders, politicians and anyone else they considered a threat. They imprisoned thousands more. The Nazis treated Poland as a colony, exploiting it for its resources.The plan was to either eradicate or deport 75% of Poles, 50% of Czechs and to decimate the population of the Soviet Union to the point that Germans would be the majority. The remainder of the Slavs would be sent to Siberia or treated as slaves.I'm not sure what else I can really say about the subject.

J Kelly, I think you are right, but you have some good sources of all this, one can use when debating those who claim that the Nazis were only there to liberate the Slavs from communism and did not want to expel, enslave, or exterminate them? 75 % of poles and 50 % and Czechs, where do you got those number from example? I guess those poles and Czechs who did not belong to those 75 % and 50 %, where considered pure "aryans"? Or why where some allowed to stay?

Those numbers come a variety of sources but I believe the numbers come from either William Shirer's the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich or Laurence Rees Auschwitz a New History.The remainder of the Slavs allowed to live in German areas would considered slaves.Oh, another source to consider is Mark Mazowar's Hitler's Empire.There also a lot of sources to consider on the Internet. I recommend this blog, of course. Also, HEART is a good website, USHM is a good website, there are others. The authors of this blog have links on the web version.

They the remainder of slavs whould be considered as slaves? I thought they should be adopted and assimilate into the german people, because the slavs who would be allowed to stay, whole be those who where seem as "pure aryans"?

Ok, thanks for the book tips. But I would like to have original sources, documents, and so on.

Something else you said that warrants attention.You said "to liberate Slavs from Communism."Eastern European countries (Poland, Romania, Hungary, etc.) were primarily anti-Communist before the War. The Communist Party in Poland was illegal, with many Polish Communsts fleeing to the USSR in the 1930's (unfortunately for them right into the worst of Stalin's ethnic purges). So the idea that the Germans were trying to liberate anyone is ludicrous, those countries did not need Hitler's help. Germany treated Poland as a colony in any case so I doubt anyone felt liberated from anything (unless you talk about liberating them from their possessions and possibly their lives).As for the Soviet Union, many inhabitants welcomed the Germans as liberators, especially the Ukraine, until the Germans started murdering Jews in large numbers and stealing everything in sight.One of the biggest mistakes the Germans made was to not court the Soviet citizens as liberators, at least until the war was over.

They're being sent into hostile climate, without any posessions or resources. The intent was basically to have them die off somewhere out of sight.It's honestly no different from the Germans sending the Herreros to die off in the desert back in the early 1900s. Still murder.

"There was another possibility: a German victory and a post-war territorial eviction on a continental scale"

But the Final Solution was already being enacted *during the war* and had been for well over a year by the time of Rosenberg's speech, made after the defeat at Stalingrad. The Madagascar Plan had been dead for a full year by the time Rosenberg made this speech.

Rosenberg knew that policy and plans had changed, the most that can be said about this 1943 speech is that he fell back on previous rhetoric to try and cover up what he knew what was actually happening, i.e. mass murder.

Nicholas Terry, but then some one might say "Why did they plan on a"Madagascar Plan"; to send the jews to Madagascar, if if the plan all along was to exterminate the Jews?"?

How would you answer that then? That the nationalsocialists was radicalized and became more hateful to the Jews during the war, which caused them to change the setting to the extreme, go from wanting to deport them out of Europe into a new Jewish homeland,to wanting to exterminate them?

Yes, radicalisation. Literally every historian and social scientist who is alive today points to clear signs of a radicalisation of Nazi policy from 1933 to 1942, with the greatest radicalisation taking place from 1939 to 1941.

The view that the Nazis, or Hitler, had a plan "all along" to exterminate the Jews is severely out-dated. Lucy Dawidowicz argued along those lines, but she died in 1990 and wasn't taken terribly seriously during the debates on Nazi policy from the 1970s onwards.

What we can say: the Nazis consistently wanted to remake the world they controlled into a judenfrei living-space, first in Germany, then in annexed countries like Austria, and finally in Europe. That meant: forced emigration, followed by a series of expulsion/reservation plans - Lublin, Madagascar, Siberia - which could not be fulfilled because the course of the war prevented them from being realised.

All the earlier plans were unrealistic fantasies one way or another, and would all have decimated the Jews expelled to these destinations, some quite severely, we can find quotes from Nazis welcoming this decimation, so the transition from expulsion to extermination was less abrupt than might be thought.

The Armenian genocide, after all, was an expulsion plan deporting Armenians to the Syrian desert, the loss of life was immense from a variety of causes, including random shootings, death marches, privation, thirst, starvation and so on.

"But the Final Solution was already being enacted *during the war* and had been for well over a year by the time of Rosenberg's speech"

Doesn't change the fact that the contention that "the method could only be direct killing" is fallacious. Circular reasoning.

"made after the defeat at Stalingrad."

Certainly a hard blow for the German war effort. But the German defeat at Stalingrad as the turning point of WW2 and the beginning of the end for the Germans, is a post-war interpretation. Most Germans believed in a German final victory until quite late in the war.

"The Madagascar Plan had been dead for a full year by the time Rosenberg made this speech."

The world is vast and belongs to the victor(s). Don't tell me that the Germans COULDN'T have found a large remote area for the confinement of Europe's Jewry somewhere on this planet - in Madagascar or elsewhere - in the event of a German victory. The Madagascar Plan wasn't dead. It was in a coma at best. Nothing says it wouldn't have been revived if the Germans had won WW2. All this in a revisionist outlook - with very numerous Jews alive to deport and resettle after the war - of course.

"Rosenberg knew that policy and plans had changed, the most that can be said about this 1943 speech is that he fell back on previous rhetoric to try and cover up what he knew what was actually happening, i.e. mass murder."

I don't find the cover-up theory very convincing. Sounds more like a prejudiced reading of general & inocuous terms.

"Doesn't change the fact that the contention that "the method could only be direct killing" is fallacious. Circular reasoning."

No, it's not. Jon Harrison interpreted Rosenberg's early 1943 speech by comparing the words to the historical context. Doing so is not "fallacious", nor does it result in "circular reasoning", because the inference being drawn from the words depends on something external, namely context, and knowledge of other sources.

"...Most Germans believed in a German final victory until quite late in the war."

Rosenberg was not talking about a policy that would be enacted after a final victory. He was making a speech in which he discussed and justified Nazi Jewish policy. Earlier in the speech, Rosenberg says 'Und nun gehen wir daran, diesen Schmutz einmal auszurotten, und was heute mit der Ausschaltung der Juden aus aller Staaten des europaeischen Kontinents geschieht, ist auch eine Humanitaet, und zwar eine harte, biologische Humanitaet'. This remark received applause, as did the one Jon quoted in the blog post. That quote is followed by Rosenberg calling the Jews 'our mortal enemies' (unsere Todfeinde).

These are all typical Rosenberg themes: the references to biology and to extirpation (ausrotten) and the identification of the Jews as a mortal enemy.

"...The Madagascar Plan wasn't dead. It was in a coma at best. Nothing says it wouldn't have been revived if the Germans had won WW2..."

Sorry, but no, the Madagascar plan was formally dead in the eyes of the RSHA and Foreign Office as of February 1942, after the Wannsee conference. The Nazis saw new "possibilities in the east", as it says in the Wannsee protocol. Rosenberg's deputy minister Gauleiter Meyer, as well as Georg Leibbrandt, attended Wannsee. So Rosenberg knew full well that Madagascar, an idea he had advocated in 1938 and 1940, was off the table.

"I don't find the cover-up theory very convincing. Sounds more like a prejudiced reading of general & inocuous terms."

The cover up consists only of not saying outright that the Jews are being killed. Rosenberg used similar language in a speech given in March 1941, but with a significant difference in emphasis. That was in a different context; the time-frame for the Jews to be made to leave Europe was lengthy, the task seen as something that would be fulfilled after the end of a victorious war.

The Nazis stopped talking about solving the Jewish question 'after the war' at the end of 1941; from then on the main part of the solution of the Jewish question was meant to happen during the war (leaving only thorny problems like Mischlinge to 'after the war'). By the time of the 1943 speech the Final Solution had been underway for quite some time, and Rosenberg knew this.

What he does say earlier in the speech is that simply pushing Jews from country to country results in them coming back, therefore the Jewish question cannot be solved in one country alone; he repeats this and rejects ghettos.

You're the one reading too much into the speech. What you want to read - eviction to Madagascar or some other extra-European destination - simply isn't in the text, nor is it in the historical context of 1943.

"No, it's not. Jon Harrison interpreted Rosenberg's early 1943 speech by comparing the words to the historical context. Doing so is not "fallacious", nor does it result in "circular reasoning""

Doesn't that 'historical context,' aka victors' narrative, precisely come from an accumulation of similar circular reasonings supposed to support each others in an alleged 'convergence of evidence'? Looks like Astronomy of the past and the erroneous conclusions drawn from the interpretation of astronomical data in a geocentric perspective, within a geocentric model. Most of time, false paradigms lead to false conclusions that seem logical and coherent but are erroneous nevertheless.

"Rosenberg was not talking about a policy that would be enacted after a final victory. Earlier in the speech, Rosenberg says 'Und nun gehen wir daran, diesen Schmutz einmal auszurotten, und was heute mit der Ausschaltung der Juden aus aller Staaten des europaeischen Kontinents geschieht, ist auch eine Humanitaet'. This remark received applause, as did the one Jon quoted in the blog post. That quote is followed by Rosenberg calling the Jews 'our mortal enemies'."

Nothing says that a final solution was to be fully achieved during the war. There is nothing unlikely or absurd in a final solution partly achieved during the war and fully completed (actually finalized) after the war. My own view and understanding of the Nazi Final solution was a 2-stage operation with Europe's Jews first gathered & imprisoned in concentration camps, ghettos and reservations (during the war) and then forcibly expelled and permanently held in a specific controlled area (after a war, in the event of a German victory).

"These are all typical Rosenberg themes: the references to biology and to extirpation (ausrotten) and the identification of the Jews as a mortal enemy."

Mass murder is not the only option to extirpate a mortal enemy. A solution as that I've just depicted can also achieve the efficient extirpation of a mortal enemy.

"Sorry, but no, the Madagascar plan was formally dead in the eyes of the RSHA and Foreign Office as of February 1942, after the Wannsee conference. So Rosenberg knew full well that Madagascar, an idea he had advocated in 1938 and 1940, was off the table."

I've seen nothing in your comment that shows the Madagascar Plan was dead, i.e. permanently dropped, and not just in a coma, i.e. temporarily off. And anyway, as I said in my previous comment, the world is vast and the formulation and implementation of other mass-resettlement plans were by no means impossible or unrealistic.

"The cover up consists only of not saying outright that the Jews are being killed. Rosenberg used similar language in a speech given in March 1941. That was in a different context; the time-frame for the Jews to be made to leave Europe was lengthy, the task seen as something that would be fulfilled after the end of a victorious war."

I fail to see why a full territorial eviction after the end of a victorious war had become impossible in 1943.

"The Nazis stopped talking about solving the Jewish question 'after the war' at the end of 1941; from then on the main part of the solution of the Jewish question was meant to happen during the war (leaving only thorny problems like Mischlinge to 'after the war')."

Do you have anything proving that the Final Solution was to be fully completed during the war, not partly during the war and partly after its end?

Note that the second quote doesn't refer to Jews being killed either. You cannot deny that there would of course have been no longer any Jews in Europe when the last Jew had left Europe. You're free to interpret both quotes as meaning the Nazi anti-Jewish policy had changed meanwhile and moved to a genocidal policy, but it's far from being the only possible interpretation.

"What he does say earlier in the speech is that simply pushing Jews from country to country results in them coming back, therefore the Jewish question cannot be solved in one country alone"

Jews could come back only because they were allowed to do it, what would have been impossible with a final solution as the one I've formulated above.

"You're the one reading too much into the speech. What you want to read - eviction to Madagascar or some other extra-European destination - simply isn't in the text, nor is it in the historical context of 1943."

You should concede that a policy of full extermination through mass murders isn't in this speech either. And as far as the alleged historical context of 1943 is concerned, I think I don't need to mention that I don't regard it as proven and satisfactorily substantiated. See my explanation about erroneous conclusions within false paradigms above...

Unknown: "Doesn't that 'historical context,' aka victors' narrative, precisely come from an accumulation of similar circular reasonings supposed to support each others in an alleged 'convergence of evidence'? Looks like Astronomy of the past and the erroneous conclusions drawn from the interpretation of astronomical data in a geocentric perspective, within a geocentric model. Most of time, false paradigms lead to false conclusions that seem logical and coherent but are erroneous nevertheless."

That's a remarkable amount of flatulent rhetoric, and ignores what I wrote. Jon used

1) Historical context 2) other sources

to interpret this Rosenberg speech. This is standard historical criticism, not the application of a "paradigm".

The historical context, explicit and implicit, includes not only the defeat at Stalingrad but the earlier defeat before Moscow, which led to the abandonment of extremely vague plans to deport Jews to northern Russia and/or Siberia, definitively so by the spring of 1942. Context also includes the Wannsee conference and the subsequent course of Nazi deportations of Jews in 1942. Strategic planning for the 1942 campaign, which concentrated on the southern sector and had more limited ambitions in the northern and central sectors, is also relevant context.

Jon referred to an earlier Rosenberg speech in November 1941 which was made at a time when the Nazis still hoped to defeat the Soviet Union in 1941, and when the territories under Rosenberg's administrations might have extended further east than became the case. He noted a contrast between the two speeches. I added a further speech to note another contrast.

"...Nothing says that a final solution was to be fully achieved during the war. There is nothing unlikely or absurd in a final solution partly achieved during the war and fully completed (actually finalized) after the war. My own view and understanding of the Nazi Final solution was a 2-stage operation with Europe's Jews first gathered & imprisoned in concentration camps, ghettos and reservations (during the war) and then forcibly expelled and permanently held in a specific controlled area (after a war, in the event of a German victory)."

Literally no sources speak of the main part of the Final Solution being solved in wartime and postwar stages. Your understanding is based on a fantasy.

"Mass murder is not the only option to extirpate a mortal enemy. A solution as that I've just depicted can also achieve the efficient extirpation of a mortal enemy."

Indeed, the Nazis also used starvation and maltreatment to bring about the accelerated demise of Jews, and discussed sterilisation as a biological solution. Your depiction is still a fantasy, though.

There isn't a single further document in either the Foreign Office files or any surviving files of the RSHA that refers to Madagascar.

There *are* references to Madagascar in 1942 by Hitler and Goebbels, the latter reacting to the Wannsee protocol by musing out loud about Madagascar on 7 March 1942, but neither he nor the Propaganda Ministry had been invited to Wannsee, so his musing is evidence he was out of the loop at that moment - he was clued in twenty days later regarding Globocnik's liquidation actions in the Lublin region.

Hitler sounded off about Madagascar in some 'table talk' monologues up to the summer of 1942, but these were verbal farts on a par with his actual flatulence; no orders cascaded down the chain of command to turn his daydreaming into reality, because in reality the SS and Foreign Office were busy implementing the Final Solution in its new form, involving extermination.

Which Hitler then boasted about in his speech of 30 September 1942 in sufficiently explicit terms that countless contemporary observers regarded this as confirmation of the news emerging from other sources that the Nazis were indeed exterminating Jews en masse

"And anyway, as I said in my previous comment, the world is vast and the formulation and implementation of other mass-resettlement plans were by no means impossible or unrealistic."

But the Nazis were implementing the Final Solution already in 1942, not planning for the future.

"I fail to see why a full territorial eviction after the end of a victorious war had become impossible in 1943."

Well, that would be because the Nazis had abandoned a territorial solution in early 1942 and started implementing extermination. The knowledge of what the Final Solution *actually was*, and all the sources - I repeat, all the sources - that document extermination must be considered when interpreting a source like the Rosenberg speech from early 1943.

One could potentially claim that Rosenberg had his head in the clouds and still clung to earlier schemes, but that would mean he was out of the loop regarding what the Final Solution had become; it's also not very probable given the sources available regarding the involvement of the Eastern Ministry in exterminating Jews in the USSR, and the utter silence from Eastern Ministry sources regarding any reservation being set up in the occupied eastern territories.

"Do you have anything proving that the Final Solution was to be fully completed during the war, not partly during the war and partly after its end?"

The entire paper trail from 1942 onwards proves that, because it doesn't mention partial completion after the war - only with the Mischlinge question is there an explicit postponement.

There's also the fact that much of the Final Solution had been completed: the bulk of Polish Jews had been killed, there was an order to deport Jews not falling under exception clauses from the Reich by mid-1943, and things were well under way in other parts of Europe.

At the time of Rosenberg's speech, and for several months afterwards, Hitler, Himmler, Ribbentrop, ambassadors and others were all working very hard to persuade Italy, Hungary and Romania, the main holdouts, to hand over their Jews. The Nazis weren't able to persuade all of them, but the war was more and more obviously lost, and they resigned themselves to having done as much as they could, of having deprived the Jews of their "biological reservoirs" in Eastern Europe.

Unknown: "Note that the second quote doesn't refer to Jews being killed either."

I said that already.

"You cannot deny that there would of course have been no longer any Jews in Europe when the last Jew had left Europe."

But Rosenberg's 1943 speech does't refer to Jews leaving Europe. It said that the JQ would be solved when there were no more Jews left in Europe.

"You're free to interpret both quotes as meaning the Nazi anti-Jewish policy had changed meanwhile and moved to a genocidal policy, but it's far from being the only possible interpretation."

Historical source criticism dictates that both quotes *must* be interpreted in the light of the fact that Nazi Jewish policy *had* changed. This narrows the range of probable interpretations down considerably - mere possibilities and coulds, woulds, and shoulds don't cut it.

Rosenberg was an utter gasbag, and this speech is laden down with long-winded verbiage, but in making these remarks he was rather clever in how he phrased things, especially compared to Goebbels' faux pas at the Sportpalast around this same time, blurting out "extirpation" by accident, or Streicher writing that a Swiss Jewish newspaper reporting about millions of Jewish deaths was "not a Jewish lie", or Himmler being utterly blunt at Sonthofen in 1944.

To listeners who knew what was actually happening, Rosenberg signalled pretty clearly that the Jews were being killed, without ever needing to say so. To listeners who remembered earlier Rosenberg speeches and his fetish for Madagascar, then those people could delude themselves into thinking 'no more Jews in Europe' meant 'Jews leaving Europe'. Except as I keep having to point out, Rosenberg didn't say that at all.

Therefore your interpretation is not unlike the desperate attempts of Trump apologists to claim that the orange buffoon didn't really say xyz outrageous statement, or if he did he didn't mean it, except if he did, or maybe it was sarcasm, no wait he did mean it, but not really.

"Jews could come back only because they were allowed to do it, what would have been impossible with a final solution as the one I've formulated above."

It's precisely the fact that expulsions didn't work in previous centuries that leads Rosenberg to speak of biology - i.e. a biological solution. Mere expulsion isn't enough, is what this dogwhistle was saying. Other Nazis were more overt about this: a senior Nazi in the Netherlands predicted, correctly, in late 1941, that expulsion from one part of Europe to the east was absolutely no solution, therefore the Jews had to be destroyed.

Rosenberg goes on to reject ghettos and reservations. There's no reason to think that this rejection is confined to Europe; the Jews are so dangerous to a Nazi antisemite like Rosenberg, and their track record in returning to countries that expelled them so proven, that this is why the 'no Jews left in Europe' conclusion carries its menace.

"You should concede that a policy of full extermination through mass murders isn't in this speech either."

Actually, it's not a policy speech. That's source criticism 101.

Rosenberg is expatiating at length about the Jewish question without mentioning any specifics whatsoever - yet the rhetoric points in a pretty clear direction.

"And as far as the alleged historical context of 1943 is concerned, I think I don't need to mention that I don't regard it as proven and satisfactorily substantiated. See my explanation about erroneous conclusions within false paradigms above..."

The only false paradigm I can see is revisionism and the erroneous conclusions it leads people like you to make.

If you want to continue this discussion, the first lines better state clearly that you have found some evidence from the planning level (RSHA or Foreign Office) after February 1942 talking about the Final Solution being implemented in stages, or involving expulsion outside Europe. If I don't see that then the post might well not be approved and will be flushed. So don't bother fisking.